Go to HHH home page.
Smart Politics
 


Obama vs. Romney and NH Primary Night Coverage

Bookmark and Share

The media had to throw out their script Tuesday night as the Democratic election returns came in during the New Hampshire primary. The print media who wrote Hillary Clinton's obituary that morning and the broadcast media who spent the hours preceding the election results asking, "What happened to Hillary?" have obviously backtracked during the past 18 hours.

But the broadcast media was slow to improvise last night, waiting at least half the evening before they could accept the fact that their paradigm (and that of the pollsters) on the Democratic side was not in line with the voice of New Hampshire voters. This, of course, is the media watchdog headline of the evening.

But there is another media story that is not being examined, and that was how the media framed the second place finishes of Barack Obama and Mitt Romney.

Based on the four New Hampshire polls released Tuesday morning with data collected through Monday, Romney trailed John McCain by an average of 5.3 points. Obama, meanwhile, held an 8.5 percent average lead in those same four polls.

The vote for Romney was right in line with the pollsters' predictions and expectations from the past week or so—Romney lost by 6 points to McCain, 37 to 31 percent, with 99 percent of the precincts reporting. Obama lost to Clinton by 3 points—or nearly 12 points shy of 'expectations.'

The media, however, was so bewildered in the first few hours of their coverage with the close Democratic race, and then so thoroughly impressed with the turnout for Clinton, that Obama's lackluster performance (again, based on expectations) became almost an afterthought. The night was all about how well Clinton had done—not about what mistakes Obama might have made to prompt the Clinton comeback (e.g. his smart-alecky reply about Hillary's "likeability" during what was the highlight for Clinton in last Saturday night's Democratic debate). Lost in the celebration of Clinton, was a critical look at Obama.

On the Republican side, despite meeting expectations, the media basically wrote off the Romney campaign. Keep in mind, Romney (Wyoming) and Obama (Iowa) have each won one state thus far in the 2008 campaign (with Obama's admittedly being the more impressive victory). There was some talk of a 'last-stand' in Michigan for Romney, but the media script was that "Romney lost" as much as it was that McCain had won. The media did—correctly—note Romney's effective 'concession' speech last night, but only after McCain gave one of his worst speeches of the past year during his victory celebration. But who should have been the big loser on Tuesday night, based on the expection game the media usually plays? Obama, not Romney. Yet Obama largely got a free pass.

It is folly to think a ratings-driven media will change in 2008, even with the Tuesday night shocker that took place in New Hampshire and left many broadcasters and pundits with egg on their faces. In an effort to be heard amongst a thousand voices on television, in the blogosphere, talk radio, and print media, grandiose statements and predictions will continue to be made (as they were last night), celebrating the efforts of one candidate and tearing down the campaign of another without taking the long view or a deep breath.

Unfortunately for Romney, and luckily for Obama, the media stuck to their script for most of their New Hampshire coverage. It took about three hours of Clinton leading in the returns to put an end to the praise of Obama, and a very flat and clumsy address to his supporters by McCain for a few positive words to be said about Romney - the current delegate leader for the GOP.

Previous post: Live Blogging: The New Hampshire Primary
Next post: Bill Richardson To Drop Out of Presidential Race?

1 Comment


  • It is true that Obama received more of a pass than Romney for a poorer showing than expect based on the recent polls. The media behavior was inconsistent with the expectation game the media usually plays. However, I think if one takes the longer view you advocate, then Obama's objective success in New Hampshire is unfairly being overlooked in favor of the media-driven story of "Clinton's surprising victory in New Hampshire." At the time of the Iowa caucuses, how was Obama polling relative to Clinton in New Hampshire? Didn't Obama's share of the vote in New Hampshire exceed that at the expense of Clinton's? What is the trajectory of the two candidates based on that? Shouldn't Obama's growing support at the expense of Clinton's be the objective story?

  • Leave a comment


    Remains of the Data

    Is There a Presidential Drag On Gubernatorial Elections?

    Only five of the 20 presidents to serve since 1900 have seen their party win a majority of gubernatorial elections during their administrations, and only one since JFK.

    Political Crumbs

    Strike Three for Miller-Meeks

    Iowa Republicans had a banner day on November 4th, picking up both a U.S. Senate seat and one U.S. House seat, but Mariannette Miller-Meeks' defeat in her third attempt to oust Democrat Dave Loebsack in the 2nd CD means the GOP will not have a monopoly on the state's congressional delegation in the 114th Congress. The loss by Miller-Meeks (following up her defeats in 2008 and 2010) means major party nominees who lost their first two Iowa U.S. House races are now 0 for 10 the third time around in Iowa history. Miller-Meeks joins Democrat William Leffingwell (1858, 1868, 1870), Democrat Anthony Van Wagenen (1894, 1912 (special), 1912), Democrat James Murtagh (1906, 1914, 1916), Democrat Clair Williams (1944, 1946, 1952), Democrat Steven Carter (1948, 1950, 1956), Republican Don Mahon (1966, 1968, 1970), Republican Tom Riley (1968, 1974, 1976), Democrat Eric Tabor (1986, 1988, 1990), and Democrat Bill Gluba (1982, 1988, 2004) on the Hawkeye State's Three Strikes list.


    Larry Pressler Wins the Silver

    Larry Pressler may have fallen short in his long-shot, underfunded, and understaffed bid to return to the nation's upper legislative chamber, but he did end up notching the best showing for a non-major party South Dakota U.S. Senate candidate in more than 90 years. Pressler won 17.1 percent of the vote which is the best showing for an independent or third party U.S. Senate candidate in the state since 1920 when non-partisan candidate Tom Ayres won 24.1 percent in a race won by Republican Peter Norbeck. Overall, Pressler's 17.1 percent is good for the second best mark for a non-major party candidate across the 35 U.S. Senate contests in South Dakota history. Independent and third party candidates have appeared on the South Dakota U.S. Senate ballot just 25 times over the last century and only three have reached double digits: Pressler in 2014 and Ayres in 1920 and 1924 (12.1 percent). Pressler's defeat means he won't become the oldest candidate elected to the chamber in South Dakota history nor notch the record for the longest gap in service in the direct election era.


    more POLITICAL CRUMBS

    Humphrey School Sites
    CSPG
    Humphrey New Media Hub

    Issues />

<div id=
    Abortion
    Afghanistan
    Budget and taxes
    Campaign finances
    Crime and punishment
    Economy and jobs
    Education
    Energy
    Environment
    Foreign affairs
    Gender
    Health
    Housing
    Ideology
    Immigration
    Iraq
    Media
    Military
    Partisanship
    Race and ethnicity
    Reapportionment
    Redistricting
    Religion
    Sexuality
    Sports
    Terrorism
    Third parties
    Transportation
    Voting